Louis wrote:
> This is from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. U.S.
> (1919), setting limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
> First Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
> Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would
> not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
> panic."
I'm amazed--most of the books I've read have indicated that the quote was
mis-attributed to Holmes and really came from a reporter who wrote up an
article about the case. Thanks for the correction.
Incidentally, that very decision is a rather good reason to oppose any
limitations on speech--for those who aren't familiar with the facts of the
original case, here's a summary from nwu.edu:
===========
Facts of the Case
During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars
suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist
system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised
only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act.
Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by
attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct
recruitment.
Question Presented
Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech
clause of the First Amendment?
Conclusion
Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not
protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the
circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are
used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in
peacetime can be punished.
============
The last quote is the only one I had seen confirmed as coming from Holmes
before as a part of this case.
The key to the case, of course, was that it was impermissible to
encourage people to disagree with the draft or to reconsider enlisting in
the US Military. While that was found to be illegal in Schenck, by the
time of the Vietnam war, the ruling had been reversed in other cases and,
in fact, the same material used to convict Schenck would have been
considered pretty mild compared to the war protest materials that were
produced in the early 1970s. Unfortunately, if we don't insist that our
right to free speech be protected, we could easily see a conservative
court reverse that yet again.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
